There's a big push right now in the military to decentralize logistics by taking advantage of ADP technology (that's automated data processing or "computers" in common parlance.) While standards are needed for rifles and other battle weapons, I personally would prefer soldiers to have access to a variety of sidearms, as they are rarely used, not critical for major combat operations, and a different pistol can drastically increase a soldier's speed and accuracy (which is the foundation of pistol craft.)

In my opinion, all units should stock limited amounts of .45 ACP and GAP, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357. Soldiers who wish to purchase and deploy with pistols chambered in these rounds should be allowed to do so, and those who choose not to should default to the M-9. All pistol training should be conducted with the M-9, though soldiers who use alternate weapons should receive a small stipend to pay for their training ammunition.

But that's just me.

Probably wouldn't do that for the same reason they don't allow soldiers to wear Dragon Skin as opposed to Interceptor BA.

The military has a long history of tampering with test to receive pre-desired conclusions. the army doesnt want to give up its IBA contracts so it wont, regardless if the competing armor designs are leaps and bounds better. Worth noting that operators who are given a choice such as Blackwater and ISI contractors choose Dragonskin over the others. The fact that the CIA, the USSS, NSA and at least 3 generals and their security folks are wearing it proves something about its ability.

the idea of having alot of different ammo in stock works just fine until major firefights expend large amounts of it. then problems occur with getting the right kind of ammo to the right people.

the military should have learned as much a long time ago. history has proven the multi-caliber theory doesnt work. for example the army at one time was considering the schofield over the single action army. (the advantage was quicker reloads). from what i read the deciding factor was not having two kinds of ammo in the field and came about when army units ran into the problem of recieving the wrong ammo.

also i might see how a couple of different calibers might be deemed neccessary. the 9mm for general use and the 45 acp for special ops. yet keeping 9mm, .357 sig, .40 s&w, .45 acp and so on in stock? though i usually have mixed opinions with guns and ammo magazine thier recent article about some cartriges becoming extinct or nearly so in the future sounds reasonable. how many people do you know that use a .41 ae or 10mm these days? for that matter the 9mm, 40 S&w and 45 acp are largely what everyone on the range is carrying.

need further proof? except for larger gunshops alot of places dont keep large quanities of ammo in stock they cant sell quickly. how many law enforcement agencies have jumped on the 357 sig or 45 gap? from my research not very many. with the new high-cap 45 acp pistols on the market the 45 gap probably wont last except for glock fans that want them. kimber already pulled out of the 45 gap and i heard other companies were looking to do the same.

and finally. our same military has given us such wonderfull theories in the past as the rii index and that infantry would not be a deciding factor in combat for long. yet the rii tables are still contreversial to say the least and the infantry has still proven neccessary even criticlal to success.

From what I've read the problem with the Dragon Skin is that the adhesives that attach the ceramic discs to the backing sometimes fail at temperatures about 160 F or so, and before you say "But they'd never be exposed to that!" think about body armor being left in a locked vehicle or some such when a soldier isn't using it. It'll get that hot.

As for the military tampering with testing...

Well... yeah. I can't think of any other reason we're still using the M16 and its derivatives.